You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will automatically be added to our player registry (unless you opt not to) and will be able to privately find and communicate with other players in your area. You will also be able to post and reply to topics, vote in polls, and many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What settings do you like the Most?

There are so many futeristic settings and so little time. I like most of the big ones. Star wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Star*Drive, Star frontiers, Farscape, Gama World, etc. I am just not a total fanatic about any of them, but so many players are completely set on just one. What settings do you like the Most? Why?

There are so many futeristic settings and so little time. I like most of the big ones. Star wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Star*Drive, Star frontiers, Farscape, Gama World, etc. I am just not a total fanatic about any of them, but so many players are completely set on just one. What settings do you like the Most? Why?

Well the best system is one i made myself. i took different ideas from different games (like the ones you mentioned) and made them fit into the AD&D system. the AD&D system is the one i like the most so i tend to change any other games/systems to fit it. It works for me.
some changed systems - Star trek, Dr.who, Space Law.

I've played a few pre-created settings out there, Traveller, Star Trek, Star Frontiers, Gamma World and Gamma World is about the only one that I use or at least stay truest to it's design. Mostly I home brew my setting. I use D20 Future for the rule set, but the background is mine, with different elements put in it from various games, books & movies.

Course, that's the same way I am about fantasy, so is it any wonder I modify my sci-fi?

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Charles Babbage (1791 - 1871)

I've played a few pre-created settings out there, Traveller, Star Trek, Star Frontiers, Gamma World and Gamma World is about the only one that I use or at least stay truest to it's design. Mostly I home brew my setting. I use D20 Future for the rule set, but the background is mine, with different elements put in it from various games, books & movies.

Course, that's the same way I am about fantasy, so is it any wonder I modify my sci-fi?

There is nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact almost everything I run is heavily modified to suit my tastes. When I say "I'm running Midnight" that is short-hand for "I'm running a dark fantasy game whose strongest influence is Midnight".

Only once in my last decade or so of gaming have I run an adventure almost entirely unmodified and that was the genius that is Chaosium's "Beyond the Mountains of Madness". Some time in the future I may also have to pay that respect to "The Great Pendragon Campaign" as well ... but we shall see.

But back to sci-fi, I have a persistent nagging idea about a post-apocalytpic campaign I wouldn't mind running sometime. It would almost certainly have to be a home-brew...

I have the original Star Trek game that came out in the early 80's and used it as a basis for conversion to D20 future. I did buy and play wotcs Star Wars (both D20 and earlier versions), AEGs Stargate, Alderacs Farscape, sword and sorcerys Gamma World, 93 game studios twilight 2013, and a couple of other d20 games. The others like cyberpunk, shadowrun, Star frontiers, etc are older versions or my own conversions with a little web help.

I like to modify and personalize the settings. This tends to lead to huge conversations and sometimes arguements about what is 'true' to the setting. Many tend to be fanatics about some settings. You know the type, "Well, in episode 69 this happened which means...", "In the fourth book they explained that which contradicts...", "That is completely different than the original! How can they..." I just wonder why some settings lead to such fanatacism. I guess I have never met a setting that didn't have at least some redeeming value that could be used.

I've done some Star Wars, but to me it largely feels finished as a setting. I suppose there might be other time periods that could be played, but the most interesting stuff seems to happen in that 30+ year period around the Clone Wars and the Rebellion.

Star Trek makes for pretty interesting viewing and idea material, but I just have difficulty with the idea of running a full game.

Stargate looks like an interesting place to live. I think I'd definitely like to play in that pool.

Star Frontiers is nifty fun, my second roleplaying game, The only unfortunate thing about it was that it never really got going enough to fulfill its potential.

I'd love to get games going in any of the follwing: Angel, Amber, Walter Jon Williams' Hardwired, Terri Windling's Bordertown/Borderlands series, Heroes (the tv show), DC's Wildstorm setting, and probably a few others.

I own the Stargate, Mutants and Masterminds, and Farscape d20 game books. Mostly just the core books. I've never played any of them but ran a Farscape game for two sessions which was amazing.
The game was geared toward tossing a human(s) out there just like John Crichton and it would have run from episode one all the way through covering all the major episodes (i own them on DVD) so the game would have been totally easy to run.
Call me lazy, but it was a great storyline.

Star Trek makes for pretty interesting viewing and idea material, but I just have difficulty with the idea of running a full game.

Star Trek lends itself well to two different approaches, which is one of the things I like so much about it. If you want your game to have that classic ST:TOS or ST:TNG feel, you can run very episodic games, launching your group from one adventure to the other without worrying too much about continuity. Or, you can run you game in the ongoing saga style of STS9 or, dare I say, ST:Voyager. In every other game, D&D included, I usually feel compelled to have an over arching campaign story, but in Star Trek, it seems to work for me just as well without one.

I dig on the idea of playing/running a Star Trek game. But here's the rub. Let's say you go with the 'bridge crew' as your main characters.

First, most players find it difficult to follow a chain of command (by my experience). I'm sure there are players out there that are great at it, someone who can actually follow orders given by some other player. But my experience has been that there's a constant argument over who is doing what and why.

Secondly all of the crew perform a certain job - simulating ops, tactical, helm, security, etc - it's hard to just feed players a constant stream of information that keeps the game flowing when dealing with those stations.

Next, we sort of go back to the first point, most players want to be individuals with their own 'show offs'. Keeping the flow of a bridge crew situation where everyone is in the same scene is do-able but difficult. But when having small groups beam down to some planet's surface, or having Tom and B'Elanna go back to their room for a little nookie, it breaks up the flow of the game and suddenly you need two GM's or make one side of the table wait till Tom and B'Elanna get done.

And more...

I will note, these are topics that I've seen in a standard game, disturbances when dealing with groups where there should be an active chain of command and a consent of flow amongst players. I'm positive people can do it, and it would make for a great game. I enjoy the Star Trek subject matter, their very clean concepts and visions of the future.

I dig on the idea of playing/running a Star Trek game. But here's the rub. Let's say you go with the 'bridge crew' as your main characters.

Well, then don't. Run a "Lower Decks" campaign. It's a bit silly for command personnel to go on every single away mission. Maybe they're better administrators than field agents.

Or, if you want to include the Bridge Crew, steal from Ars Magica and give each player three characters: a Bridge Officer, a Specialist, and a Red Shirt. Vary the nature of missions so that one week A's Captain and B's Diplomat beam down with C's Red Shirt, and next week A's Exobiologist and C's Science Officer beam down with B's Red Shirt.

Although I can imagine an amusing Red Shirt campaign, where characters try to survive despite hostile aliens *and* self-serving officers. Sure, when the Captain meets an alien, she's a scantily clad abundantly female humanoid who asks, "What is this thing you call ... love?" When one of the characters meets an alien, it's a giant slug that chews eyeballs.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Charles Babbage (1791 - 1871)